MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4212932197 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab049.070

A71 POLYP TO ADENOMA CONVERSION FACTOR AS A SURROGATE FOR ADENOMA DETECTION RATE-– FINDINGS FROM THE SOUTHWEST ONTARIO COLONOSCOPY COHORT

2022· article· en· W4212932197 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Al-obaid, Cassandra McDonald, Leonardo Guizzetti, Brian Yan, Vipul Jairath, Michael Sey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyAdenomaCohortInternal medicineGastroenterologyGeneral surgeryColorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the main quality indicators of a colonoscopy but requires combining endoscopic and histologic data. However, the polyp detection rate (PDR) requires only endoscopic assessment and has been proposed as a proxy measure for the ADR. Aims To calculate a conversion factor for PDR to ADR, for use as a future surrogate of ADR when only PDR is available. Methods The Southwest Ontario Colonoscopy cohort consists of all outpatient colonoscopies performed across 20 hospitals in Southwestern Ontario between April 2017 and February 2018. Data was collected prospectively through a mandatory quality assurance form that was completed after each procedure and pathology reports were manually reviewed. Endoscopies with associated histologic findings were included. The PDR and true ADR were calculated for each physician. A weighted polyp to adenoma detection rate quotient (APDRQ) was calculated, weighting each physician’s APDRQ by the number of procedures performed. The APDRQ was determined for all outpatient procedures and specifically for screening/surveillance indications. Results During the study period, 57 endoscopists performed 31,721 colonoscopies. The overall PDR was 41.1% and the ADR was 26.5%. The weighted ADPDRQ was 0.638 (95% CI: 0.600, 0.675). When limited to screening/surveillance colonoscopies, the weighted ADPDR was 0.616 (95% CI: 0.564, 0.669). To better understand the influence of endoscopists with low ADR: PDR, we excluded those with ratio below (<2 standard errors) the average, which resulted in greater ADR: PDR for all colonoscopies 0.695 (95% CI: 0.679, 0.711) and for screening/surveillance colonoscopies and 0.692 (95% CI: 0.677, 0.707). Conclusions In this large, population-based, cohort study, we calculated the ADR; PDR ratio. We propose this may be used in future studies to infer ADR when only PDR is available. Scatter plot of correlation between ADR and PDR, by physician. The dashed line indicates the line for which ADR=PDR, the maximum value the ADR can take for a given PDR. The marker size is proportional to the number of colonoscopies performed. Funding Agencies None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→